Every time I think Mike Huckabee is an "okay guy," something comes out of his mouth to make me doubt my own sanity.

This was another one.

No one -- especially someone with Huckabee's credentials -- should EVER joke about guns and presidential candidates (or presidents). His apology was certainly not effusive enough for me.

Huckabee could have joked that they finally got that rifle out of Charleton Heston's cold dead hands.

Huckabee has an excellent "mask".

The things he has said in the past as a "preacher" are disturbing. He's not what he appears.

"Who knows, he could have been trying for a quick and clever way to refer to Obama as someone who fears the constitutional issue of guns."

One can either learn the actual history, or one can continue to repeat the extreme right wing/NRA lie. Here are the basic facts on the matter:

1. The first purpose of the Second Amendment was political: to assuage the paranoia of the anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of the Constitution (because of US Con. Art I., s. 8, c. 15 and 16 -- see "A" below), and thus by that means gain sufficient support to ratify the Constitution. Thus, along with Notice of Ratification, facilitated by anti-Federalist support, several states sent proposed amendments (those having been drawn from existing state constitutions/bills of rights) to the Constitution.

2. That which would become the Bill of Rights was codified out of those proposed amendments by Representative James Madison, who submitted the result as a resolution in the first Congress under the newly-ratified Contitution.

3. After several postponements, which indicates how urgent the majority of Congress, populated by founders and framers, viewed the necessity for a Bill of Rights, the first Congress debated that resolution. This is the original language of that which would become the Second Amendment, as drafted by Madison. Note, in particular, the last clause, in bold, which is the only "individual right" debated concerning that Amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [IN THE MILITIA] in person." (Creating the Bill of Rights, at 12; full cite at "B" below.)

As is inescapably obvious, that last clause directly ties that posited "individual right" to MILITARY SERVICE, as an EXEMPTION thereform. Ultimately, as is also obvious, that last clause -- the only posited "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment -- was voted down.

4. Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed on December 15, 1791.

5. Subsequent to 4., Congress, populated by founders and framers, enacted "The Militia Act" on May 8, 1792, which implemented US Con. Art. I, s. 8, c. 15 and 16.

6. What does "The Militia Act" do? It regulates the militia. And where is the well regulated militia in terms of the Second Amendment? It is within the scope of that Amendment. Thus it is obvious that the Second Amendment does not "protect" from the rule of law that which is within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Further: IF the Second Amendment included within its scope an "individual right," which it clearly does not do, such a right would not be "protected" from the rule of law -- that is, would not be "protected" from regulation by law, any more than is the militia.

There is an individual, private right to own guns, but the Second Amendment, having nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, is wholly irrelevant to it; thus regulation of that individual, private right does not "violate" the Second Amendment, which is wholly irrelevant to the issue.

To be clear: EVEN IF the Second Amendment "protected" an "individual right," it would not "protect" that right from regulation by means of gun control laws.
_____

A. The portions of the Constitution implemented by means of "The Militia Act" read:

Art. I., s. 8. [The Congress shall have Power]
. . . .
c. 15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections [no "right of revolution": see both "Shays'" and "Whiskey" rebellions, and the responses of founders/framers thereto] and repel Invasions;
c. 16. To provide [by means of "The Militia Act"] for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States [see "Whiskey" rebellion, and amendments to "The Militia Act" concerning same], reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . . .

The "discipline prescribed by Congress"? "The Militia Act".

B. For those who wish to follow up, to affirm or attempt to challenge and refute the foregoing facts, these are relevant sources (the NRA's propaganda on the point isn't relevant because it is false), all of which are in print and readily available from such as Amazon:

The Birsth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791 (various publishers), Robert Allen Rutland.

Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, paper, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford.

The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties (Madison, WI: Madison House, paper, 1992), Edited by Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski.

The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), Edited by Neil H. Cogan.
_____

There is also this directly-relevant tie-in from a famous founder:

SPEECHES

of

His Excellency the Governor

and

Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year

[May Session, 1792.]
Wednesday, June 6.

. . . .

GENTLEMEN,
I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act for regulating the Militia of the States. That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .
JOHN HANCOCK.

Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792.
_____

That included conforming the state's current Militia Act to the Federal, in keeping with the supremacy clause.

Many of us share in a general vision for this country. We share in a general interest, But...

Many more of us seem to prefer to brake-out into positions and arm themselves with rhetoric meant to divide and shot-down opponents - all looking for the right turn of a phase, with the weight of an authority, whether it be genus, history, law, comedy, or the Bomb to decimate the other side. Remember, in a crime of passion the victim is usually a family member.

I agree with much of what has been said about Huckabee's character and JNagarya's display of the Second Amendment. And I do not excuse this incident as a joke. It is too serious an incident to allow it to be exploited by arm dealers in gotcha politics. What I am saying is let's stop playing with guns, and let's not be distracted by arms dealers.

Right now, Democrats face a more difficult task, we need to fashion a new approach to issues that have suppressed many in our culture for longer than this country has existed. Because the Republicans seriously lost their barings during the Bush years, and because Democrats put forward the most articulate group of voices, this gives US the opportunity to do this work within the Party. We can start by reconciling differences between Obama and Clinton supporters. Let’s not sweep anything under the rug, but lets work to provide space for all of our aspirations.

To the winners, lets not forget that after a very contentious primary contest, nearly half of democrats will be seriously disappointed in the results. The time is coming to reach out and carry each other’s water and push forward a united vision. This work falls on all of us.

If you need to throw grenades and deal in arm go somewhere else.

As a purely hypothetical proposition: If Mike Huckabee went quail hunting with Dick Cheney (advance warning given to the innocent quail, of course) would this constitute an open invitation, or "incitement" to a crime?

Even Taylor Marsh's head finally exploded and attacked the Clinton supporters there.

She shut down comments, banned the most racist ones, and is moderating the regulars minute by minute.

Some of them were acting like characters from "Lord of the Flies".

It's how I felt about a post on tribalism.

Speaking of words and images that are supposedly "innocent". Take a look at one shop owner that's selling the Obama 08 T-shirts with Curious George as the character.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=93ti-26Av7o

Of course he has his own creative, innocent reasons for promoting dehumanizing racial stereotypes.